What is Socialism?

This thread is a spinoff from the Obamacare thread tangent about socialism and capitalism, I'm starting a new thread for it here. I've posted some of the pertinent exchange between myself and aelf:

Lexicus said:

What was unclear? The Nazis were right-wing socialists. They rejected the market as the fundamental basis for the organization of society. They deficit-spent Germany to full employment and attempted to subsume worker-employer disputes into a larger social framework of a nation organized entirely for war.

Click to expand...

aelf said:

This is expressly un-socialist.

Also, you seem to have overlooked the primary and central ideas of racial purity and supremacy in Nazism, which are also completely un-socialist.

Simply put, Nazism only shares superficial characteristics with socialism.

Click to expand...

Lexicus said:

It is not expressly un-socialist. Un-socialist would have been balancing the budget and expecting the Depression to resolve itself through workers taking pay cuts.

Socialism means the subordination of market imperatives to some other logic. That logic in turn can be liberal or illiberal, right-wing or left-wing, militaristic or pacifistic.

In my view both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany are examples of illiberal, right-wing, militaristic socialism.

Click to expand...

aelf said:

Nope, that is not what socialism is. That simply describes almost every system that is not capitalist.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, it's exactly what socialism is. It doesn't describe an abstract "system" but stuff that people actually experience in the real world. Collective bargaining is socialism. Social security is socialism. Labor standards and minimum wages are socialism.
"Socialism" is simply used to describe those policies, institutions, organizations, etc. which act to limit the raw effect of the market on society. Crucially, this means that the market must already have been unleashed on society - "socialism" cannot be used to describe precapitalist social formations like feudalism.
This complicated definition of socialism is necessary not only as a purely intellectual matter - we need it to make sense of things, because other definitions of socialism aren't as useful - but as a political matter as well. It identifies socialism in tangible things that people interact with on a daily basis and understand intuitively, rather than making it something abstract and remote.
It also has the benefit of being consistent with how most thinking people see capitalism - as something which emerged over time, without any self-appointed revolutionaries self-consciously bringing it about.

So any group that runs social programs is socialist? So is the US Army, then.

Click to expand...

...the armed forces are socialist too. Good observation.

Timsup2nothin said:

It even describes most capitalist systems. Other than in a pure free market capitalism, in which market imperatives are allowed to spawn monopolization freely while hoping that somehow the market will resolve the problems that result all by itself, there is always going to be intervention of some sort.

Click to expand...

You seem to be thinking in terms of total systems and binary conditions. In reality (as opposed to theory) socialism and capitalism coexist: it couldn't possibly be any other way.

I would conclude on the Nazi question by saying that I think aelf and J each are attempting to make claims about the Nazis for political reasons. Aelf can't bear the thought that the Nazis might reflect on something (socialism) he's presumably invested in, while J simply thinks "socialism bad, Nazis bad, tar socialists with Nazi brush".

My argument is a bit different. I used to have the same position here as aelf - and I would vehemently deny that the Nazis were socialists every time the topic came up - but my understanding of socialism changed, and I was forced to eventually admit the Nazis are indeed socialists. They're odious socialists, but socialists nonetheless.

I think I would be remiss if I didn't explain that my views derive from the ideas of James Livingston. An essay by him on the subject for those interested:

http://reallibertarianism.com/left-libertarianism-pages/how-the-left-has-won/

This essay upends many conventional assumptions - too many to summarize it simply. I tried to pick some excerpts to quote here in the thread, but I think it works better if you just read the whole thing.

Lexicus said:

You seem to be thinking in terms of total systems and binary conditions. In reality (as opposed to theory) socialism and capitalism coexist: it couldn't possibly be any other way.

Click to expand...

Valid, though they actually coexist just as much in theory as they do in practice.

Ultimately there is a socialist/capitalist dichotomy in describing the system as a whole. There is a threshold where the economy as a whole is deemed "more socialist than not" as opposed to "more capitalist than not" so that the people who want a neat, one word label can use one or the other. While it would certainly be more accurate to always refer to "more capitalist" or "more socialist" looking for precision in discussions of economics is a fool's errand. I'd be impressed if we could just get rid of some of the GLARINGLY FALSE concepts that come up in literally every conversation a layman has on the subject.

Socialism means never having to say you're sorry.

Manfred Belheim said:

Socialism means never having to say you're sorry.

Click to expand...

Since it is a practical application of "love thy neighbor as thy self" that is reasonably accurate.

I changed my mind, I think I can post this excerpt and have it make sense (it also explains the stakes of the topic here):

But why is that simple historical fact important, or even interesting? Who cares whether or where socialism actually exists anymore? Or rather, what is the point of caring? A famous political philosopher put the question to me this way: “Why is socialism the name of our desire?

In the American intellectual context, the answers are always framed by Sombart’s question: the name of our desire is the unobtainable. To say you’re a socialist is to place yourself at the margin, beyond the pale, on the run, off the reservation, or at sea: you’re a mariner, a renegade, a castaway, you march to a different drummer, you’re above all a dissenter from the political mainstream. You know that in these United States, socialism is a foreign import, branded as such by politicians and social scientists alike, and you want – no, you really need – to come from that world elsewhere. Europe will do but France would be better. The danger on the rocks has surely passed; still you remain tied to the mast.

You want – no, you really need – to believe that socialism can’t ever happen here, because that would mean heaven and earth had somehow intersected, that the revolution of the saints had been televised but you missed it. You have to believe that your political purpose is something like a sacred vow that exempts you from the corruptions of this world. Your dissent keeps you clean. But that cleanliness, next to godliness, makes you a holy fool who must abstain from the real world.

“Do you seek far off? Surely you come back at last.” That’s Walt Whitman singing the anti-metaphysical lullaby that made him a nineteenth-century scandal. In the spirit of that poem, I hereby invite you back to these United States, where socialism is a historical reality that saturates our time and place, regardless of ideological commitments, party labels, and political discourse. It’s not the name of an unobtainable desire – it’s all around us.

So conceived, socialism no longer functions as an ethical principle with no bearing on the historical circumstances of our time, which is about as useful as a crucifix when the real vampires approach. Instead of a pious wish that things should be better – an “ought” with no purchase on the “is” – it begins to feel like the fuller expression of an actually existing social reality, something we can live with, build on, and build out. It begins to look like a usable past.

Click to expand...

"Socialism is running out of other people's money". (Well along those lines.) That perfectly described the downfall of Nazi Germany, since they had to expand to use the wealth of other nations and when that wealth run out they had to expand more, but they eventually run out of other people's money and ultimately they were destroyed.

classical_hero said:

"Socialism is running out of other people's money". (Well along those lines.) That perfectly described the downfall of Nazi Germany, since they had to expand to use the wealth of other nations and when that wealth run out they had to expand more, but they eventually run out of other people's money and ultimately they were destroyed.

Click to expand...

There are people who can be counted on to substitute idiotic platitudes for discussion when confronted by topics that are beyond their understanding. Way to represent.

classical_hero said:

"Socialism is running out of other people's money". (Well along those lines.)

Click to expand...

that describes capitalism well too, so it is a trait they have in common.

modern socialists understand that we will not achieve socialism in our life times so
''We aim to promote greater equality of power, wealth and opportunity.'' sums up the Australian Fabien Society which aims to do this by influencing the Australian labor party, its no longer about owning the means to production, but gaining access to the means, so it happily co-exists with capitalism. Free health care/hospital and medications being an example
tho I miss the days when Governments had grand plans like Qantas, or the Snowy mountains Hydro scheme, the Murray Irrigation Scheme. It's why we don't have National broadband yet. Also social housing and housing co-ops no longer seem important to right wing governments when tax doges for investors are more important than housing for low income people (nothing wrong with them being able to buy/own them for themselves.)

The concentration of wealth, power, and opportunity is just the natural outcome of the monopolization force that exists in all markets. It happens as much as regulation of the market fails...in the US, that is almost completely.

Interesting, I don't agree markets demonstrate a 'natural' tendency towards the concentration of wealth and power. Marxists would agree with you though.

Timsup2nothin said:

The concentration of wealth, power, and opportunity is just the natural outcome of the monopolization force that exists in all markets. It happens as much as regulation of the market fails...in the US, that is almost completely.

Click to expand...

that's a role for socialists to 'interfere' with the market for the common good, that's what regulations are for.
ask Burnie

A spectre is haunting OT — the spectre of wrong definitions of socialism

Interesting, I don't agree markets demonstrate a 'natural' tendency towards the concentration of wealth and power. Marxists would agree with you though.

Click to expand...

What is the objective of trading in a market if not to concentrate wealth and power?

that's a role for socialists to 'interfere' with the market for the common good, that's what regulations are for.
ask Burnie

Click to expand...

Social democracy =/= Socialism

west india man said:

A spectre is haunting OT — the spectre of wrong definitions of socialism

Click to expand...

well, please do tell... or is it a secret.

west india man said:

A spectre is haunting OT — the spectre of wrong definitions of socialism

Click to expand...

It's not a matter of correct or incorrect, in my view- it's too theoretical for that.

But please, let's hear your definition.

west india man said:

What is the objective of trading in a market if not to concentrate wealth and power?

Click to expand...

The question is loaded. Markets are too universal to human experience for there to be one 'objective' of participating in them. People participate in markets for all kinds of reasons.

Lexicus said:

Interesting, I don't agree markets demonstrate a 'natural' tendency towards the concentration of wealth and power. Marxists would agree with you though.

Click to expand...

When it is possible to have a return of investment greater than the economic growth, the concentration of wealth is a mathematical certainty.

I just go off the definition I find on Google; A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Lexicus said:

It's not a matter of correct or incorrect, in my view- it's too theoretical for that.

But please, let's hear your definition.



The question is loaded. Markets are too universal to human experience for there to be one 'objective' of participating in them. People participate in markets for all kinds of reasons.

Click to expand...

Does anybody enter into a market without wanting to increase the concentration of wealth (not just cash, remember) in their hands? We usually define enterprises without a profit motive as explicitly non-market - charities and public services, for example.

uppi said:

When it is possible to have a return of investment greater than the economic growth, the concentration of wealth is a mathematical certainty.

Click to expand...

which is why we hear the word re-distribution so much whether through government programmes with taxes or limits placed on market share or imposition of royalties for using natural resources. They are designed to spread around peoples fair share

uppi said:

When it is possible to have a return of investment greater than the economic growth, the concentration of wealth is a mathematical certainty.

Click to expand...

This is incorrect for a number of reasons.

One, Piketty's argument (that's who you're lifting this from) is that if return on capital ownership over the longer term - like, multiple generations - is greater than the rate of economic growth over the same period, then inheritance will predominate over income as a method of wealth accumulation. The mere possibility of earning a return on investment greater than economic growth guarantees nothing.

Even if those conditions are satisfied, that says nothing about the 'certainty' (much less the 'mathematical certainty'!) of concentration of wealth, because 1) people can concentrate wealth through other means and 2) there are plenty of potential countervailing forces that can prevent wealth from becoming concentrated even given the conditions Piketty lays out there. Like, for example, a robustly progressive taxation regime (which Piketty argues for in his book!) could counteract this and prevent too much concentration of wealth.

In any case, this argument isn't actually a refutation of mine, even if it were correct, because you still would need to show that those conditions which led to the 'mathematical certainty' of wealth concentration sprang 'naturally' from markets - a very tall order.

Even if those conditions are satisfied, that says nothing about the 'certainty' (much less the 'mathematical certainty'!) of concentration of wealth, because 1) people can concentrate wealth through other means and 2) there are plenty of potential countervailing forces that can prevent wealth from becoming concentrated even given the conditions Piketty lays out there. Like, for example, a robustly progressive taxation regime (which Piketty argues for in his book!) could counteract this and prevent too much concentration of wealth.

Click to expand...

This seems to imply that we live in a meritocratic society where anyone can accumulate as much wealth as they can. This isn't true of course, and it wouldn't be true even with higher taxes on the rich, because they would still control the means by which wealth is produced, and would therefore be constantly concentrating wealth in their own hands

Old Hippy said:

well, please do tell... or is it a secret.

Click to expand...

Lexicus said:

It's not a matter of correct or incorrect, in my view- it's too theoretical for that.

But please, let's hear your definition.

Click to expand...

Workers control of the means of production, which you might notice, has nothing to do with social democracy or the public sector of the economy

Lexicus said:

The question is loaded. Markets are too universal to human experience for there to be one 'objective' of participating in them. People participate in markets for all kinds of reasons.

Click to expand...

The reasons why people trade in markets can still be boiled down to wanting an increase of wealth and power, regardless of when or where the markets are. The capitalist mode of production especially forces people to depend on markets for survival, taking away control over every aspect of their lives if they refuse to trade, which makes it so that everyone is forced to try to constantly increase their wealth (and thus purchasing power).